Opinion
January 9, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Harold Tompkins, J.].
The time limitations set forth in Executive Law § 297 (2) (a) and (4) (a) are directory, not mandatory ( Matter of Pepsico Inc. v Rosa, 204 A.D.2d 552). While there was some delay in processing respondent Jefferson's complaint, petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it was prejudiced as a result thereof. Neither an increased exposure to back pay liability nor the inability to discharge a liability in bankruptcy hindered petitioner from mounting a defense ( cf., Corning Glass Works v Ovsanik, 199 A.D.2d 959). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate its witnesses' unavailability to testify. Respondent Division's determination is supported by substantial evidence. Contentions that the administrative agency gave various evidence or testimony too much or too little weight are inadequate to warrant annulment of the determination by a reviewing court ( Matter of Silberfarb v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 60 N.Y.2d 979; Matter of New York City Bd. of Educ. v Batista, 54 N.Y.2d 379, 384-385).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.